The Instigator
kurtzreallytall
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Alexby1
Con (against)
Winning
27 Points

Resolved: Failed Nations are more of a threat to the United States than successful ones.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/13/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,581 times Debate No: 10106
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (5)

 

kurtzreallytall

Pro

"Resolved: Failed nations are more of a threat to the US that successful ones."

Whether the peril is terrorism, pandemics, narcotics, human trafficking, or civil strife, a state so weak that it incubates a threat is also a state too weak to contain a threat." -US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice
Contentions
1.Due to a lack of law and order, failed nations provide a breading ground for terrorist groups and other threats to the national security of the United States.
2.Many failed nations have access to nuclear weapons and other advanced weaponry and are ill equipped to protect these weapons.
3.Failed nations are susceptible to radical idealism and religious fanaticism which can threaten the foundation of a healthy global order.

1. Terrorist haven
Within failed states, there exists a state of hardship and frustration which breads anger. Terrorists feed off this anger to fuel the fire of extremism. The inability of failed states to maintain rule of law further enables the fire to spread. According to the US Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, "In recent years, it seems we've had more security problems from states that have been in trouble than we have from strong states that have been an adversary to us in the traditional way." The Defense Minister of India said yesterday, "There are various terrorists groups operating from Pakistan, but despite our repeated requests all terrorist camps are intact. Many of them are in the vicinity of their army bases." The Taliban is gaining control of many areas of Pakistan and in April, the terrorist group gained control of the very strategic Buner district, just 70 miles from the capital, Islamabad. According to the New York Times, "it was another indication of the gathering strength of the insurgency and it raised new alarm about the ability of the government to fend off an unrelenting Taliban advance toward the heart of Pakistan." Commenting on the situation in Buner, a senior law enforcement official in North-West Frontier Province said. "They take over Buner, then they roll into Mardan and that's the end of the game."
2. Nuclear threat
Pakistan has become a failed state and a breading ground for terrorism. Pakistan has between 70-90 nuclear devices, has not signed the non-proliferation treaty or the comprehensive test ban treaty, and is accused of selling its nuclear technology to North Korea in return for missile technology. The Federation of American Scientists reports that Pakistan's nuclear devices could be within the means of non-state actors that intend to assemble a crude nuclear weapon. Pakistan's status as a failed state is particularly troubling when you consider there are terrorist camps in the vicinity of their army bases and Pakistan has demonstrated its inability to effectively combat terrorism. Pakistan is an example of the severe risks and dangers failing nations pose to the United States. One nuclear attack on a US city could have unprecedented results and is unquestionably the greatest threat facing the United States.
3.Extremism
When the angers and frustrations of failed states build, the people turn to fundamentalist religion for answers or seek rapid change through radical idealism. Both approaches have, throughout history, resulted in destruction and severe dangers for the United States. In recent times, the dangers of the religious fundamentalists have been witnessed through terrorist attacks such as those on September 11th and the ensuing insurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq; two failed states. According to a study at Berkeley University, the number of civilians killed by radically idealistic governments in the 20th century was 155,600,000. These governments posed serious threats to the foundation of the global order and led to US involvement in World War II, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War. Radical idealism and religious fundamentalism propagates with ease and swiftness in nations designated as "failed" and both doctrines are dangerous to the stability of global order and the national security interests of the United States.
Alexby1

Con

Thanks to my opponent for this debate.

CONTENTION 1: Stable nations threaten the US militarily.

According to John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago in 2006, "The basic structure of the international system forces states concerned about their security to compete with each other for power … In the … world of international politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi."[1] Our most serious competition comes from rising powers such as Russia and China, which chafe under US hegemony. According to William Reed of Rice University, there is growing resentment towards the US as a hegemon, and this resentment is important because "Dissatisfaction with the status quo provides the incentive or willingness [for them] to wage war…"[2]

Other nations have already begun to challenge US military hegemony. Reuters stated this month that, "Chinese vessels have confronted U.S. surveillance ships in Asian waters repeatedly this year and Beijing has called on the United States to reduce and eventually halt air and sea military surveillance close to its shores."[3] In 2008, Russia ignored the US' calls to end military action in Georgia[4], and Taiwan remains a center of extreme contention between the US and China.[5] Forbes Magazine reported in 2009 that Russia is greatly increasing the size of its military and is "commissioning the construction of 700 new strategic nuclear weapons.[6] According to Robert Art of Harvard University in 2006, China is building up militarily in order to fight the US.[7] These military threats are likely to become more frequent and direct in the future.

Overall, stable nations are more of a threat to the US than failed nations because stable nations threaten military conflict with the US.

-

CONTENTION 2: Stable nations threaten the US economically.

Stable nations are harming the US economically in two ways.

First, stable nations are using unfair labor policies in order to drain away US markets. For example, laborers in stable nations such as China, Russia, India, and Mexico work for much less than the average worker in the United States. According to Business Week Magazine in 2008, this income inequality has depressed workers' wages. The income inequality between the US and its competitors is important because it creates job outsourcing in the United States. Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University stated in 2004 that China, India, and Mexico are the largest recipients of the US's outsourced jobs. The Economic Policy Institute specified in 2007 that the US outsourced a net 1.8 million jobs were outsourced to China alone between 2001 and 2006.[8] According to the Wall Street Journal[9] and American University[10], outsourcing is substantial to India and Russia as well. This means that United States companies no longer can produce basic goods in the US. This is evidenced by the US's enormous trade deficit with other stable nations. According to the US Census Bureau in 2009, the US had a trade deficit of over 1.4 trillion dollars with China, Russia, India and Brazil in 2007[11], 39% of the total trade deficits for that year[12]. This means that other stable nations are producing goods that the US no longer can provide for itself, increasing dependency on other stable nations. Stable nations threaten the United States because they could continue to drain the US economy of the basic industries it needs, and now the US is captive to the industry decisions of other stable nations.

The second way in which stable nations threaten the United States is because they could out-compete the US in future industries. As stable nations are able to advance intellectually, they become more and more sophisticated in science and technology, which leads to the growth of the economy. For example, many other countries are leading the way in the creation of green technology, and expanding in areas in which the US is deficient. Ben Furnas of the Center for American Progress estimated in 2009 that Japan leads the way in solar technology, and China invests 12.9 million dollars per hour in the advancement of green energies.[13] This is important because other stable nations will advance and accrue economic opportunities and investment that the US will not, and the US could get further and further behind once this precedent is set. As the Center for American Progress states, given the US's lag in developing green technology, millions of jobs are created in China and Japan instead of the US.[14]

-REFUTATIONS-

1: Terrorism in failed states

To support this point, my opponent offers the isolated example of Pakistani terrorist movements. What we should instead refer to, however, is the larger picture. Through careful examination of the facts, Gary Dempsey of the Cato Institute concluded in 2006 that, "Failed states are where the terrorist are most vulnerable to covert action, commando raids, surprise attacks, and local informants are willing to work for a few dollars. Failed states are not 'safe havens,' they are defenseless positions."[15] This means that counterterrorism efforts are actually aided rather than impeded by state failure. Moreover, terrorists prefer to operate in stable nations. The Economist pointed out in January that, "International terrorists need to be able to travel, communicate, and transfer funds; they need to be within reach of functioning population centers. [As such], they prefer [to operate in] functional states."[16] This is why Peter Borgen of Johns Hopkins University stated in 2006 that 41% of Muslim terrorists reside in Western nations, and that there are more Muslim terrorists residing in France than in Pakistan and Yemen combined.[17]

Furthermore, terrorism is becoming less and less threatening. The National Intelligence Council reports that, "Support for terrorist networks in the Muslim world appear to be declining…Analysis of terrorists' communications among themselves indicates that they see themselves in a losing battle with Western materialistic values."[18]

(The first and third contentions both center around terrorism, so refer to the above ideas for refutations to my opponent's third point).

2: Nuclear threat from failed states

First, as this point too is about terrorism, see my above refutations.

Second, Pakistan is stable: US envoy to Pakistan Richard Holbrooke states that Pakistan "is not a failed state."[19] His point works for me.

--

CONCLUSION: Vote CON

1]http://kdb2.portal.aau.dk...

2]http://journals.cambridge.org...

3]http://in.reuters.com....

4]http://www.nytimes.com....

5]http://www.washingtonpost.com....

6]http://www.forbes.com....

7]http://www.mitpressjournals.org...

8]http://www.epi.org....

9]http://online.wsj.com....

10]http://www.american.edu....

11]http://www.census.gov....
http://www.census.gov....
http://www.census.gov....
http://www.census.gov....

12]http://www.census.gov....

13]http://climateprogress.org....

14]http://climateprogress.org....

15]http://www.cato.org...

16]http://www.economist.com...

17]http://www.princeton.edu...

18]http://www.dni.gov...

19]ht
Debate Round No. 1
kurtzreallytall

Pro

kurtzreallytall forfeited this round.
Alexby1

Con

As my opponent forfeited, extend all my arguments. Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
kurtzreallytall

Pro

kurtzreallytall forfeited this round.
Alexby1

Con

Again, extend my arguments.

To my opponent: you have two rounds left to rebuild your case and refute mine. I suggest that you use this time wisely.
Debate Round No. 3
kurtzreallytall

Pro

kurtzreallytall forfeited this round.
Alexby1

Con

Extend my arguments. Please join me in voting CON.
Debate Round No. 4
kurtzreallytall

Pro

kurtzreallytall forfeited this round.
Alexby1

Con

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Conduct: CON (forfeits)
Grammar: TIED (no noticable errors)
Arguments: CON (forfeits, refutations, warrants)
Sources: CON (18-0)
Posted by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
Conduct: Con. Pro forfeited many times.
Spelling & Grammar: tied. Nothing I noticed.
Arguments: Con. Pro forfeited and so didn't respond.
Sources: Con. Pro used some, but didn't provide links or footnotes.
Posted by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
My last source got cut off. It should read:

19] http://www.msnbc.msn.com...
Posted by Mirza 7 years ago
Mirza
I was just about to accept it, and it said "Updated: 0 seconds ago". I want to end this debate, which is repeated so many times.
Posted by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
So. %^&*($#. SICK. OF. THIS. DAMN. TOPIC.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
BangBang-Coconut
kurtzreallytallAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfiet
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
kurtzreallytallAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
kurtzreallytallAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Alexby1 7 years ago
Alexby1
kurtzreallytallAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Mixer 7 years ago
Mixer
kurtzreallytallAlexby1Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70